3 ms·

Share the evidence or delete the comment as misinformation.

ohmaigad 6y ago
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/immune-cells-common-cold-may-recognize-sars-cov-2 https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/immune-... Can't comment on the other stuff.
hodgesrm 6y ago
The evidence is not hard to find. [1] Took me about 60 seconds. I would suggest in future supplying this to the conversation yourself as it makes for a more productive discussion. [1] https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/immune-cells-common-cold-may-recognize-sars-cov-2 https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/immune-...
tripletao 6y ago
Multiple papers (including one in Nature[1]) have reported T-cell immunity to SARS-CoV-2 in something between a third and half the samples collected before the pandemic. That doesn't mean the virus won't replicate in people with that pre-existing immunity, and there's evidence from homeless shelters and such of almost everyone testing positive (both by PCR and later for IgG in their blood); but people with that T cell immunity very likely get less sick, and might be less infectious (though near-certainly still infectious, and that's more speculative). And it seems from the hostility of your response ("delete the comment as misinformation") that you find it incredible that herd immunity could exist with less than 1 - 1/R0 of the population infected? But even ignoring any pre-existing immunity, that calculation assumes a homogeneous and well-mixed population. That's clearly not the case, since some people (a nurse in a crowded ER, a police officer, a store clerk, a nightlife enthusiast, etc.) have far more contacts than others (a remote worker who gets stuff delivered). People with more contacts will get infected first, with disproportionate harm, and then become immune first, with disproportionate benefit. Many papers have modeled[2] this; though no one's found a great way to measure that heterogeneity yet, so for now, it's hard to say much beyond that the effect exists, and is potentially big. And finally, herd immunity isn't a binary threshold, especially in a heterogeneous population. As others have noted, even places without enough immunity for R < 1 will still have slower spread than in a naive population, or may get to R < 1 from the immunity plus slightly more cautious behavior. Conversely, places that do have R < 1 overall may still have pockets of spread in sub-populations with unusually high R0. In any case, it's no conspiracy theory to believe that NYC developed significant amounts of immunity along the way to its ~24k (about 0.3% of the population!) deaths. 1. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z 2. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.10.20021725v2.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.10.20021725v...

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/immune-cells-common-cold-may-recognize-sars-cov-2 https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/immune-... Can't comment on the other stuff.

hodgesrm 6y ago

The evidence is not hard to find. [1] Took me about 60 seconds. I would suggest in future supplying this to the conversation yourself as it makes for a more productive discussion. [1] https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/immune-cells-common-cold-may-recognize-sars-cov-2 https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/immune-...

tripletao 6y ago

Multiple papers (including one in Nature[1]) have reported T-cell immunity to SARS-CoV-2 in something between a third and half the samples collected before the pandemic. That doesn't mean the virus won't replicate in people with that pre-existing immunity, and there's evidence from homeless shelters and such of almost everyone testing positive (both by PCR and later for IgG in their blood); but people with that T cell immunity very likely get less sick, and might be less infectious (though near-certainly still infectious, and that's more speculative). And it seems from the hostility of your response ("delete the comment as misinformation") that you find it incredible that herd immunity could exist with less than 1 - 1/R0 of the population infected? But even ignoring any pre-existing immunity, that calculation assumes a homogeneous and well-mixed population. That's clearly not the case, since some people (a nurse in a crowded ER, a police officer, a store clerk, a nightlife enthusiast, etc.) have far more contacts than others (a remote worker who gets stuff delivered). People with more contacts will get infected first, with disproportionate harm, and then become immune first, with disproportionate benefit. Many papers have modeled[2] this; though no one's found a great way to measure that heterogeneity yet, so for now, it's hard to say much beyond that the effect exists, and is potentially big. And finally, herd immunity isn't a binary threshold, especially in a heterogeneous population. As others have noted, even places without enough immunity for R < 1 will still have slower spread than in a naive population, or may get to R < 1 from the immunity plus slightly more cautious behavior. Conversely, places that do have R < 1 overall may still have pockets of spread in sub-populations with unusually high R0. In any case, it's no conspiracy theory to believe that NYC developed significant amounts of immunity along the way to its ~24k (about 0.3% of the population!) deaths. 1. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z 2. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.10.20021725v2.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.10.20021725v...